GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter

"C. E. White" <cewhite3.RemoveThis@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4613a2a4$1@kcnews01...
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:euu11s.34c.1@news.evilcabal.org...

*snipping good info*
> The Crown Victoria has stayed in production for so long because it offers
> a combination that is hard to beat for police work. The following article
> summarizes it better than I could:
> http://hamptonroads.com/stories/crown_vics.html
>
> Ed

OK, thanks. Now, why did Ford drag their feet on admitting the design was
wrong for that type of work. I'm not saying the police were without fault
completely, just isn't this something that should have been explained,
before these guys died/were maimed horribly?

Natalie
>
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

On Apr 4, 5:44 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958diespammers....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Crown Victorias are not particularly fire prone. Ford conducts fuel
> integrity crash tests on the CV at far higher speeds than required by
> the government. The Chevrolet Caprice (also a rear wheel drive car
> with a solid axle) had a similar safety record to the CVs. I don't
> know if an Imapla Patrol car has ever burst into flames. Impalas make
> up a very small percentage of all poilce vehicles. Only a tiny number
> of all police vehicles are ever invovled in an accident that results
> in a fire. There are tens of thousand of CV patrol vehicles on the
> road. The chances of one of these vehicles being in a violent
> collision are much higher than a Impala or Charger being in a similar
> collision. It is my opinion that an officier is safer in CV than an
> Impala or a Charger. The injury loss rating for the Civilian CV is
> better than for the civilian Impala (71 vs 97 - lower is better - the
> Charger is to new to have a rating yet, the somewhat similar Chrysler
> 300 has a rating of 103).
>
> Ed
>
> Sorry, not buying. You still haven't said why this happened only with
> certain cars. Do Toyotas have defects? Dangerous defects, sometimes? Hell
> ya. But I suspect, that like many things, size matters. The Echo is a tiny
> car (so is the Impala); naturally you won't survive a crash as well in it.
> That's the chance you take with a small car. Nothing new. That is not my
> point at all.

What do you mean by certain cars? Different types of cars respond
diffeently to different type of crashes. The car most comparable to
the Crown Victoria was the old Chevrolet Caprice (no longer sold).
NHTSA concluded that the Caprice and the CV had similar safety
records.

> Also, you're talking general injury/losses. I'm talking the *unique* loss
> of your damned car exploding. BIG difference. All vehicles are potential
> death traps - what else is new.
>
> But that exploding car is *not* something commonly seen. THAT is my gripe
> about it; not that Toyotas are necessarily safer overall.
>
> Natalie

Crown Victoria don't just "explode." Your making this claim is an
attempt to paint Crown Victorias unfairly. Sometimes in a violent
collision cars, including Toyotas, catch on fire. Becasue of the
unique way in which the police use their vehicles, they are more
likely to be involved in violent rear end collisions than average
vehicles. You know - the whole idea of being parked on the shoulder of
I-95 while SUVs roar by at 80 mph.

For 1999-2002 Models in calander years 2000-2003, Crown Victorias had
the 46th lowest driver death rate of all vehicles sold in the US
(there are 199 models in the list). The only Toyota car with a lower
driver death rate was the Avalon. Given that a high percentage of CVs
are in police usage, and therefore exposed to a more hazaduos
enviroment, it seems to me you are way off base trying to paint Crown
Victorias as unusually unsafe.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"Ed White" <ce.white3 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175722346.727052.184110@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 4, 2:59 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958diespammers... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> OK, thanks. Now, why did Ford drag their feet on admitting the design was
> wrong for that type of work. I'm not saying the police were without fault
> completely, just isn't this something that should have been explained,
> before these guys died/were maimed horribly?
>
> Natalie

Ford has never admitted the design was "wrong" for the work becasue
that is not a true statement. I might as well ask you why is Toyota
dragging their feet on admitting Echos have one of the worst safet
records of any vehichle sold in this country. Why is it that Toyota
owner feel the need to try to create false impressions about Ford
products while ignore the glaring faults with Toyota products? This is
exactly the sort of thing that drives me crazy. It is not just
something that you do - the press does this as well. Any problem with
a domestically produced vehicle is front page news. Toyota recalls are
just ignored or pushed to the second page of the weekly auto section.
Many Toyota vehicles have mediocre Injury Loss Ratings, so it seems to
me it take a very biased Toyota owner to accuse Ford of building
unsafe vehicles. It you don't believe me on this, go to
http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html and look up the injury
loss rating for yourself.

*snipping some of this for brevity*

Crown Victorias are not particularly fire prone. Ford conducts fuel
integrity crash tests on the CV at far higher speeds than required by
the government. The Chevrolet Caprice (also a rear wheel drive car
with a solid axle) had a similar safety record to the CVs. I don't
know if an Imapla Patrol car has ever burst into flames. Impalas make
up a very small percentage of all poilce vehicles. Only a tiny number
of all police vehicles are ever invovled in an accident that results
in a fire. There are tens of thousand of CV patrol vehicles on the
road. The chances of one of these vehicles being in a violent
collision are much higher than a Impala or Charger being in a similar
collision. It is my opinion that an officier is safer in CV than an
Impala or a Charger. The injury loss rating for the Civilian CV is
better than for the civilian Impala (71 vs 97 - lower is better - the
Charger is to new to have a rating yet, the somewhat similar Chrysler
300 has a rating of 103).

Ed

Sorry, not buying. You still haven't said why this happened only with
certain cars. Do Toyotas have defects? Dangerous defects, sometimes? Hell
ya. But I suspect, that like many things, size matters. The Echo is a tiny
car (so is the Impala); naturally you won't survive a crash as well in it.
That's the chance you take with a small car. Nothing new. That is not my
point at all.

Also, you're talking general injury/losses. I'm talking the *unique* loss
of your damned car exploding. BIG difference. All vehicles are potential
death traps - what else is new.

But that exploding car is *not* something commonly seen. THAT is my gripe
about it; not that Toyotas are necessarily safer overall.

Natalie
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

You are mistaken in your belief.. You can educate yourself, search the NHTSA
site. If you do, you will discover their two year investigation, of
complaints of fires in the CV and the Interceptor, proved the Interceptor
far exceeds ANY certifies police car or OTHER car on the market, in the
ability to take a hit in the rear without effecting the integrity of the
fuel system or injury to passengers..

mike


"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ev0o6c.7c.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>
> "Ed White" <ce.white3.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175722346.727052.184110@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 2:59 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
> <wickeddoll1958diespammers....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, thanks. Now, why did Ford drag their feet on admitting the design
>> was
>> wrong for that type of work. I'm not saying the police were without
>> fault
>> completely, just isn't this something that should have been explained,
>> before these guys died/were maimed horribly?
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Ford has never admitted the design was "wrong" for the work becasue
> that is not a true statement. I might as well ask you why is Toyota
> dragging their feet on admitting Echos have one of the worst safet
> records of any vehichle sold in this country. Why is it that Toyota
> owner feel the need to try to create false impressions about Ford
> products while ignore the glaring faults with Toyota products? This is
> exactly the sort of thing that drives me crazy. It is not just
> something that you do - the press does this as well. Any problem with
> a domestically produced vehicle is front page news. Toyota recalls are
> just ignored or pushed to the second page of the weekly auto section.
> Many Toyota vehicles have mediocre Injury Loss Ratings, so it seems to
> me it take a very biased Toyota owner to accuse Ford of building
> unsafe vehicles. It you don't believe me on this, go to
> http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html and look up the injury
> loss rating for yourself.
>
> *snipping some of this for brevity*
>
> Crown Victorias are not particularly fire prone. Ford conducts fuel
> integrity crash tests on the CV at far higher speeds than required by
> the government. The Chevrolet Caprice (also a rear wheel drive car
> with a solid axle) had a similar safety record to the CVs. I don't
> know if an Imapla Patrol car has ever burst into flames. Impalas make
> up a very small percentage of all poilce vehicles. Only a tiny number
> of all police vehicles are ever invovled in an accident that results
> in a fire. There are tens of thousand of CV patrol vehicles on the
> road. The chances of one of these vehicles being in a violent
> collision are much higher than a Impala or Charger being in a similar
> collision. It is my opinion that an officier is safer in CV than an
> Impala or a Charger. The injury loss rating for the Civilian CV is
> better than for the civilian Impala (71 vs 97 - lower is better - the
> Charger is to new to have a rating yet, the somewhat similar Chrysler
> 300 has a rating of 103).
>
> Ed
>
> Sorry, not buying. You still haven't said why this happened only with
> certain cars. Do Toyotas have defects? Dangerous defects, sometimes?
> Hell ya. But I suspect, that like many things, size matters. The Echo is
> a tiny car (so is the Impala); naturally you won't survive a crash as well
> in it. That's the chance you take with a small car. Nothing new. That is
> not my point at all.
>
> Also, you're talking general injury/losses. I'm talking the *unique* loss
> of your damned car exploding. BIG difference. All vehicles are potential
> death traps - what else is new.
>
> But that exploding car is *not* something commonly seen. THAT is my gripe
> about it; not that Toyotas are necessarily safer overall.
>
> Natalie
>
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"Ed White" <ce.white3 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175730812.054564.36850@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 4, 5:44 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958diespammers... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

*snipping the repeated comments*

For 1999-2002 Models in calander years 2000-2003, Crown Victorias had
the 46th lowest driver death rate of all vehicles sold in the US
(there are 199 models in the list). The only Toyota car with a lower
driver death rate was the Avalon. Given that a high percentage of CVs
are in police usage, and therefore exposed to a more hazaduos
enviroment, it seems to me you are way off base trying to paint Crown
Victorias as unusually unsafe.

Ed

I don't know how to make it more clear for you.

*ahem*

I am NOT saying the CVs are responsible for more deaths than any other car.
I get that part, I do.

I AM saying, if it has a particular defect, that is especially dangerous for
certain uses, such as cops, Ford should have been more forthcoming in
accepting responsibility, *AND* for letting the other cops, as well as the
public know that this car is more prone to detonate in certain situations.

I remember when this issue first came up, and it infuriated me that Ford
kept saying it was the cops' fault, and that *nothing* was wrong with the
car's design. They could have at least acknowledged that there were more
factors than how the car was used.

Clearly there was - at least at that time.

I don't know about where you are, but I don't see nearly as many CVs being
driven by cops anymore - but you'll probably try to tell me it's the unfair
media attention, so we won't go into that, cuz I can't buy it.

Guess this is another thing we'll have to agree to disagree about.

Natalie
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"El Bandito" <abuseur.TakeThisOut@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:FEXQh.96270$ig1.763523@weber.videotron.net...
> Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>>
>> #1. You're evil...
>
> Thank you, I try my best

*shudder*
>
>>
>> #2. I'm asking *you* if this ever happened to Impalas? My point is to
>> ask why this particular disaster apparently only happened (to my
>> knowledge) with Crown Vics, and many moons ago, the Pinto.
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Since Crown Vics have been a Police favorite for years, almost
> exclusively, It might be why...
>
> At least, they don't drop transmissions on the road like Chryslers. Or
> suddendly catch fire like some Mercedes, and so on... Every car model has
> its own quirks (In my Contour, the quirk was the whole car...)
>
> Let me rephrase that. The Radio worked fine
>

LOL

Natalie
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 RemoveThis @mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:sOKdncP0fPcDronbnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@ptd.net...
> You are mistaken in your belief.. You can educate yourself, search the
> NHTSA site. If you do, you will discover their two year investigation, of
> complaints of fires in the CV and the Interceptor, proved the Interceptor
> far exceeds ANY certifies police car or OTHER car on the market, in the
> ability to take a hit in the rear without effecting the integrity of the
> fuel system or injury to passengers..
>
> mike

One thing about lawsuits: They are rarely based on reality. They are based
on emotions. Facts almost always get lost in the way.

Jeff
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

On Apr 4, 8:13 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958diespammers....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ed White" <ce.whi....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175730812.054564.36850@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 5:44 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
>
> <wickeddoll1958diespammers....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> *snipping the repeated comments*
>
> For 1999-2002 Models in calander years 2000-2003, Crown Victorias had
> the 46th lowest driver death rate of all vehicles sold in the US
> (there are 199 models in the list). The only Toyota car with a lower
> driver death rate was the Avalon. Given that a high percentage of CVs
> are in police usage, and therefore exposed to a more hazaduos
> enviroment, it seems to me you are way off base trying to paint Crown
> Victorias as unusually unsafe.
>
> Ed
>
> I don't know how to make it more clear for you.
>
> *ahem*
>
> I am NOT saying the CVs are responsible for more deaths than any other car.
> I get that part, I do.

So you think it would be better if the police used cars that were less
safe, as long as they were less likely to catch fire? Are you saying
you would be willing to trade a few more death by trauma in order to
elimate a fire death?

> I AM saying, if it has a particular defect, that is especially dangerous for
> certain uses, such as cops, Ford should have been more forthcoming in
> accepting responsibility, *AND* for letting the other cops, as well as the
> public know that this car is more prone to detonate in certain situations.
>
> I remember when this issue first came up, and it infuriated me that Ford
> kept saying it was the cops' fault, and that *nothing* was wrong with the
> car's design. They could have at least acknowledged that there were more
> factors than how the car was used.

There is nothing wring with the cars design. Ford tested the fuel
system at far higher cash speeds than required to insure this. It
seems that you want Ford to say there is something wrong when there is
not. If you hit any vehicle hard enough, you can rupture a fuel tank,
even one mounted under the rear seat.

Think about this -

>From 1974 to 1987 the speed limit on most US roads was 55 and less.
Prior to the early 90s there were realatively few large trucks and
SUVs on the highways. The damage caused when an SUV moving at high
speed crahes into the rear of a parked patrol car is going to be far
greater than a sedan moving at 55 or 60. So why not identify
increasing speed limits or the increasing numbers of SUVs for police
car fires? Chevrolet stopped selling the Caprice police cars after the
early 90's, so during much of the late and middle 90s, right up until
today the CV was the largest selling vechicle for highway patrol work.
So, you have an increasing treat level becasue of more large vehicle
traveling at higher speeds and only one target - the Ford CV. It is
simple math to figure that when violent collisions happen to police
vehicles, a CV will be almost certainly be involved. You have no frame
of reference for claiming that CVs are defective. You essentially only
have a sample of one for comparison.

> Clearly there was - at least at that time.
>
> I don't know about where you are, but I don't see nearly as many CVs being
> driven by cops anymore - but you'll probably try to tell me it's the unfair
> media attention, so we won't go into that, cuz I can't buy it.

I am in NC (aren't you as well)? NC tried Impalas, but is no longer
buying them. This year they are buying a large number of Dodge
Chargers (somewhere around 250) - mostly becase they are looking for
higher speed cars, CV are relatively slow, especially when equipped
with light bars. At least on the NC roads that I drive, I see as many
CVs as ever. One recent trend is moving the blue lights from the roof
to inside the vehicle along the top of the windshield and rear window.
This makes the cars less obvious on the highway and probably helps
with the speed. I am in Raleigh, and they still only have CV police
cars.

> Guess this is another thing we'll have to agree to disagree about.
>
> Natalie

You keep trying to make it seem as if CV are defective. They are not.
NHTSA studied the heck out of this and came to that conclusion. The
trail lawyer industry tied to make this claim but then that is how
they make the big bucks. The press been more than willing to highlight
cases where CV caught fire after a violent collision, but that is
their nature. Death by fire is sensational, so it makes for good TV.
None of this mean CVs are defective. I don't mind disagreeing with
you, but I hate to see you fall prey to bad reporting.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ev0o6c.7c.1@news.evilcabal.org...

>
> Also, you're talking general injury/losses. I'm talking the *unique* loss
> of your damned car exploding. BIG difference. All vehicles are potential
> death traps - what else is new.
>

The "unique" loss of your damned car exploding? Do tell - what car out
there simply "explodes"? Perhaps you should study the incidents in which
the Crown Vic has suffered gas tank intrusion and you just might see that
those cases involved circumstances that would be considered extreme by any
definition. If you want an automobile that is engineered to withstand
anything that can possibly be encountered on the road, buy an Abrams tank.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE.RemoveThis@alltel.net
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

We can only assume you did not search the NHTSA site, if you continue to
believe the Interceptor had a defect that led to fuel system fires since the
NHTSA two year investigation proved otherwise.

Perhaps you are not seeing them but the fact is, currently nearly eight out
of ten certified police pursuit vehicles sold in the US and Canada are
Interceptors.

mike

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ev10tk.3ro.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>
> "Ed White" <ce.white3 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175730812.054564.36850@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 5:44 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
> <wickeddoll1958diespammers... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> I don't know how to make it more clear for you.
>
> *ahem*
>
> I am NOT saying the CVs are responsible for more deaths than any other
> car. I get that part, I do.
>
> I AM saying, if it has a particular defect, that is especially dangerous
> for certain uses, such as cops, Ford should have been more forthcoming in
> accepting responsibility, *AND* for letting the other cops, as well as the
> public know that this car is more prone to detonate in certain situations.
>
> I remember when this issue first came up, and it infuriated me that Ford
> kept saying it was the cops' fault, and that *nothing* was wrong with the
> car's design. They could have at least acknowledged that there were more
> factors than how the car was used.
>
> Clearly there was - at least at that time.
>
> I don't know about where you are, but I don't see nearly as many CVs being
> driven by cops anymore - but you'll probably try to tell me it's the
> unfair media attention, so we won't go into that, cuz I can't buy it.

> Natalie
>
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"Mike Marlow" <...
>
> "Wickeddoll®" ...
>
>>
>> Also, you're talking general injury/losses. I'm talking the *unique*
>> loss
>> of your damned car exploding. BIG difference. All vehicles are
>> potential
>> death traps - what else is new.
>>
>
> The "unique" loss of your damned car exploding? Do tell - what car out
> there simply "explodes"? Perhaps you should study the incidents in which
> the Crown Vic has suffered gas tank intrusion and you just might see that
> those cases involved circumstances that would be considered extreme by any
> definition. If you want an automobile that is engineered to withstand
> anything that can possibly be encountered on the road, buy an Abrams tank.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-

Well, I tried.

I'm done with this pointless wheel-spinning, thanks.

Natalie
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

"Ed White"
"Wickeddoll®"
>
> *snipping the repeated comments*
>
> For 1999-2002 Models in calander years 2000-2003, Crown Victorias had
> the 46th lowest driver death rate of all vehicles sold in the US
> (there are 199 models in the list). The only Toyota car with a lower
> driver death rate was the Avalon. Given that a high percentage of CVs
> are in police usage, and therefore exposed to a more hazaduos
> enviroment, it seems to me you are way off base trying to paint Crown
> Victorias as unusually unsafe.
>
> Ed
>
> I don't know how to make it more clear for you.
>
> *ahem*
>
> I am NOT saying the CVs are responsible for more deaths than any other
> car.
> I get that part, I do.

So you think it would be better if the police used cars that were less
safe, as long as they were less likely to catch fire? Are you saying
you would be willing to trade a few more death by trauma in order to
elimate a fire death?

*** No, now you're being facetious. I mean get a big car that's way less
likely to react the same way to that type of collision. How about that?
Nevermind, I'm not answering this thread again. It's a waste of time.

> I AM saying, if it has a particular defect, that is especially dangerous
> for
> certain uses, such as cops, Ford should have been more forthcoming in
> accepting responsibility, *AND* for letting the other cops, as well as the
> public know that this car is more prone to detonate in certain situations.
>
> I remember when this issue first came up, and it infuriated me that Ford
> kept saying it was the cops' fault, and that *nothing* was wrong with the
> car's design. They could have at least acknowledged that there were more
> factors than how the car was used.

There is nothing wring with the cars design. Ford tested the fuel
system at far higher cash speeds than required to insure this. It
seems that you want Ford to say there is something wrong when there is
not. If you hit any vehicle hard enough, you can rupture a fuel tank,
even one mounted under the rear seat.

Think about this -

***Still not buying, simply because you have yet to show me how cops were
killed/injured in the same way with a different vehicles. But that's okay.

>From 1974 to 1987 the speed limit on most US roads was 55 and less.
Prior to the early 90s there were realatively few large trucks and
SUVs on the highways. The damage caused when an SUV moving at high
speed crahes into the rear of a parked patrol car is going to be far
greater than a sedan moving at 55 or 60. So why not identify
increasing speed limits or the increasing numbers of SUVs for police
car fires? Chevrolet stopped selling the Caprice police cars after the
early 90's, so during much of the late and middle 90s, right up until
today the CV was the largest selling vechicle for highway patrol work.
So, you have an increasing treat level becasue of more large vehicle
traveling at higher speeds and only one target - the Ford CV. It is
simple math to figure that when violent collisions happen to police
vehicles, a CV will be almost certainly be involved. You have no frame
of reference for claiming that CVs are defective. You essentially only
have a sample of one for comparison.

***And you have not provided proof of CV *not* being more vulnerable in that
situation than other cars in its class.

> Clearly there was - at least at that time.
>
> I don't know about where you are, but I don't see nearly as many CVs being
> driven by cops anymore - but you'll probably try to tell me it's the
> unfair
> media attention, so we won't go into that, cuz I can't buy it.

I am in NC (aren't you as well)? NC tried Impalas, but is no longer
buying them. This year they are buying a large number of Dodge
Chargers (somewhere around 250) - mostly becase they are looking for
higher speed cars, CV are relatively slow, especially when equipped
with light bars. At least on the NC roads that I drive, I see as many
CVs as ever. One recent trend is moving the blue lights from the roof
to inside the vehicle along the top of the windshield and rear window.
This makes the cars less obvious on the highway and probably helps
with the speed. I am in Raleigh, and they still only have CV police
cars.

***Yes, in Fayetteville they have some, but they have some other vehicles I
have yet to identify. Might be beta testing them. *shrug*

> Guess this is another thing we'll have to agree to disagree about.
>
> Natalie

You keep trying to make it seem as if CV are defective. They are not.
NHTSA studied the heck out of this and came to that conclusion. The
trail lawyer industry tied to make this claim but then that is how
they make the big bucks. The press been more than willing to highlight
cases where CV caught fire after a violent collision, but that is
their nature. Death by fire is sensational, so it makes for good TV.
None of this mean CVs are defective. I don't mind disagreeing with
you, but I hate to see you fall prey to bad reporting.

Ed

I hate to see you missing my point every time, but I give up.

Life's too short. See ya on another thread.



Natalie
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter 

On Apr 5, 6:23 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958diespammers....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I hate to see you missing my point every time, but I give up.

What point? That you have an axe to grind with Ford? It seems to me
you just kept saying the same thing, with no supporting facts. No one
claims that there haven't been CVs that caught fire in very severe
collisions. But NHTSA studied this and concluded CV were not
defective. Ford tests them at far higher speeds than required. It
seems that you want me to prove that other cars are as likely to catch
fire as a CV. There are not nearly enough cases invovling other
vehciles (Impalas Chargers, etc.) to draw any statistical conclusions.
Maybe there will be in 3 or 4 years. However, becasue the police now
take extra precautions (stopping further off the road, angling cars
away from the road, new rules requiring driver to avoid stopped police
cars), it is likely that there will be fewer violent collisions that
result in a fire. Despite what you seem to think, there are very few
fires following a collisions. Before the CV became popular, the most
popular police vehicle was the Chevrolet Caprice. It had a similar
incidence of fire following a collision. Civilian CVs and Grand
Marquis have a better safety record than the civilian versions of
other cars commonly used in police work.

One more time here are my thoughts:

1) The CV gas tank is located in a safe place (at the front of the
trunk above the rear axle)
2) Ford has conducted rear end collision test at higher speeds (75
mph) than any other manufacturer tests their vehicles
3) Even the early CVs (before the upgrades) had a similar incidence of
fire following collision to the Chevrolet Caprice
4) NHTSA studied the CV and concluded there was not a defect
5) During the life of the CV as a police vehicle, the "threat level"
has increased for police cars stopped along the side of roads - there
are more large vehicles driving at higher speeds than in the past
6) Civilian CVs and Grand Marquis are among the safest cars sold in
the US

> Life's too short. See ya on another thread.

Clearly you don't care about facts. I am surprised you didn't say
something like - "You are free to choose to believe as you wish...."

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: GM, Ford sales seen down in March as trucks falter